Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby

Wednesday, 23 January 2019

Shut up and choose

The problem is not just that no-one is willing to compromise, but that no-one is even willing to make a choice at all. There are options we could do, if only people would just bloody choose one. These include :

- Accept May's deal. This is already accepted by the rest of the EU and would prevent the economic cliff edge of a no deal scenario. Many of the provisions for the transition period are actually, almost unbelievably, not awful. Problem : the backstop risks contravening the Good Friday agreement and therefore raises the quite real (for evidence, see recent events) prospect of renewed terrorism in Northern Ireland. Additionally, the EU isn't willing to renegotiate it, so that, with some fairly high degree of certainty, is the best deal we're gonna get. Terrorist activity, that's the best we can hope for if we leave with a deal.

- Seek an extension on Article 50. This would give us time to decide on other options. Not unreasonable, since thus far it's been May's deal or bust (and even those who've tried to negotiate it have themselves quit because it's that shitty). The problem is that an extension requires the agreement of the other member states. Now if we can present a valid case, say, outlining how we're going to proceed and why we need more time to make the decision, this might work. It won't be easy but we could probably do it.

- Unilaterally revoke Article 50. Unlike an extension, Britain has the right to simply stop the whole process without permission from the other members. Then we stay in on current terms (which are exceedingly favourable because - God knows how - prior diplomats seem to have had some degree of negotiation skills). Of course, the Brexiteers (the hardcore - not to be confused with the 52% who voted for Brexit) won't be happy about this, but everyone else will be. Will there be riots ? Quite likely. This strategy only works long-term if we then seek to address the underlying grievances that led to Brexit, which I'm willing to bet in 99% of cases have nothing much to do with the EU at all. The EU is just a scapegoat, a victim of scaremongering and propaganda by a ludicrously unrestrained far-right press for the last few decades.

- Leave with no deal. This is the economic equivalent not of shooting ourselves in the foot but of shooting our legs off. As I understand it, this does not mean replacing the EU trade regulations we currently operate under, but renegotiating with every single other country independently. And Christ on a bike that's a stupid idea. Would this even keep the Brexiteers happy ? No, not at all. They will, after a brief euphoria, in fact be much less happy under the option they claim to prefer. Once the economic hardship kicks in still deeper, they'll keep on blaming someone else for their misfortune and we'll have a lot of angry, stupid, racist, empowered people on our hands. This is a singularly idiotic course of action.

Those, at present, are the choices we have to make. We must also decide how to make it. In principle, Parliament could do it right now, but they seem hell-bent on avoiding any actual decisions. That leaves two options :

- A general election. Sure, in principle, a brand-spanking new government could have a stronger mandate to choose which road to go down (or even open a new possibility if they were to propose one). But that would only happen if the parties were offering a different choice. Since they're singing identical tunes, the choice of government is absolutely meaningless. The Tories have done the best they can (believe it or not, it's probably unrealistic to expect a better deal than the shitty one we've ended up with). Labour say they can do better, but don't offer an iota of a clue as to what they'd do differently, or how. The only possible advantage to this would be if either side would at least say, "we need an extension on Article 50 to decide what to do next". But since they aren't even doing that, changing the particular set of lunatics in charge wouldn't get us anything much at all.

- A second referendum. This is the only option which has even the remote possibility of actually settling the issue. Realistically this should have three options : May's deal, no deal, or no Brexit. A fourth option of seeking a completely different arrangement might be possible. This would then require a third referendum as to which route we want, which probably means we'd be restricted to three options since no-one wants even more referenda. Of course, even the three-option choice could still end up leaving things as divided as ever. Complaints that it risks endless votes are not utterly baseless, but it is similarly wrong to suggest that a second vote is somehow undemocratic. If Brexit is, as has so often been shouted, truly the will of the people, then Brexiteers ought to have no qualms about testing that assertion. In order to make this work, all sides would have to agree that a second referendum - would be the end of the matter.


So even now, at this late stage, there are still sensible choices available (all of the amendments proposed are just window dressing; these are the choices we ultimately can't escape). The problem is that no-one has the courage to choose anything.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46971390

4 comments:

  1. Thanks for your introduction, Rhys Taylor.
    It sums up the current situation pretty well.
    Being an great fan of the Uk from
    Germany, I can only hope the people will come to their minds in time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The EU cannot compromise further without destroying itself to fulfill UK's wishes. All further compromises would end the integrity of the four freedoms for complete market access.
    And it would compromise the status of Ireland as a full EU member, something the EU never can tolerate.

    UK did this mess, not the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent analysis. Just one thing: why would the backstop (as currently existing in May's deal) risk contravening the Good Friday Agreement? As I see it, the backstop keeps the GFA alive and kicking by keeping at least Northern Ireland as close to the EU as possible, thereby alleviating the need of any border structure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joerg Fliege As I understand it, the backstop as written applies only to Northern Ireland - not the whole of the UK - by keeping it within the customs union. But the GFA (caveat below) says that Northern Ireland cannot be treated differently from the rest of the UK. So in the highly probable event the backstop would actually be used, the government has to choose between treating NI differently and therefore breaking the GFA, or bringing the whole UK back into the customs union for an indefinite period and having no say in its rules (I don't know if we'd also have to pay for membership of the custom union in that case).

    For all the protestations that the backstop is a last resort and only meant to be temporary, given the state of the negotiations thus far it's very hard to believe it wouldn't ever be implemented - and even harder to imagine that if it did happen a solution could somehow be found very quickly.

    One major caveat : I am not 100% certain if it's the GFA itself that says NI must be treated the same as the rest of the UK, or the DUP's interpretation of it.

    ReplyDelete

Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.

Whose cloud is it anyway ?

I really don't understand the most militant climate activists who are also opposed to geoengineering . Or rather, I think I understand t...